[Serious] The Good

[The Grand Nudger]

Let’s give a summation of the “objectivism” of your views on morality.

What’s objective is only in relation to the “is” of a moral statement, in relationship to descriptive elements such as the harm caused by the holocaust.

Correct.   I suspect that the only way that any holocaust can be said to be objectively bad is based on what a holocaust -is-.  

The reason you claim morality is objective, is because these descriptive elements can be objectively measured, such as the social impact of theft, or murdering children, etc.., just like cheesiness and thinness in my pizza example.

Sure, that's all that realism is.

When it comes to “oughts”, the we ought not do what’s harmful, this isn’t grounded in reality, there’s no transcendent moral order that anchors it, reality posses no teleological or moral aims. It’s the mere relative or subjective agreed upon goals of groups of people, and society.

Realist oughts are based on realist is-es.   That's not a bug, it's a feature. The relative and the subjective are facts of a society or of a person, not facts of a matter. People can and do build moralities off of any of these things. Theres no point in complaining about that in order to turn around and build a morality out of them. God doesn't like some shit? So what, that's a subjective morality. A whole culture doesn't like some shit, maybe they don;t like the shit they think their god doesn't like.........so what, that's a relative morality.

The only thing that makes some x good, or bad, is some fact of the matter itself, x. That's all that realism is, all that realism could be, all that realism or objectivity makes any claim to. It's pretty simple, really. As simple as any other realist statement.